2

THE TABLET.

[Saturday, July 6, 1872.

pulsory, was rejected by 302 votes to 234. The “ scrutiny” amendment which the Government accepted in substance was passed in the form of a counter-amendment by 382 to 137, guarantees for secrecy, as contained in Lord Hartington’s clause, being inserted, and the number was ordered to be printed on the back of the ballot paper and on the face of the counterfoil. Each will be sealed up after the election, and only opened on the order of a judge, after the vote has been proved invalid. The amendment reducing the maximum distance of polling places from four to two miles was rejected, and that prohibiting the use of schoolrooms for this purpose, though accepted by the Government, was opposed by Sir M. Beach, and rejected by 365 to 86 ; the attack on it from the Conservative benches being quite as strong as from the Ministerial side, and Sir Rainald Knightley declaring that the Lords had struck out of a bad Bill almost the only good provision it contained. And although the Government agreed to Lord Shaftesbury’s amendment, fixing the hours of polling at from 8 to 5 in winter and from 8 to 7 in summer, the House restored the uniform hour by 227 to 190 votes. On Monday, Lord Beauchamp’s amendment, making the act a temporary one, was strongly opposed by Mr. Gladstone— who said that it was “ the duty of the House to vindicate the reality, the “ seriousness, the laboriousness of its own proceedings”— and was rejected by 246 votes to 163. The amendment dispensing with the declaration to be made by illiterate voters before a magistrate, and other minor consequential amendments, were disagreed to, and a committee was appointed for drawing up reasons as usual. On Tuesday the Bill was again brought up to the House of Lords.

day.

Mr. Newdegate gave notice on Friday, the th e 28th, that as his Monastic and Conventual In‘ convents stitutions Bill was now a dropped order, he education1 should move the adjourned debate on the

b ills. second reading as an amendment to whatever

notice stood first on the paper on the 2 o’clock sitting on Friday, the 5th inst. The second reading of the Scotch Education Bill in the Lords was fixed for the same

Sir R. ree l ’s angry question as to the protec-

mr. justice t;on provided for Mr. Justice Keogh— put, as

KEOGH. ]\[r Gladstone said, in a tone not altogether usual, and backed by a threat to move an adjournment, and bring on a debate about the whole question— was answered by the simple assertion that every possible precaution had been taken to protect the judge, enforce the law, and punish those who break it; and to Lord Crichton’s complaint of the language used in Lord Granard’s letter, Mr. Gladstone replied : first, that a charge against a lieutenant of a county was too grave a matter to be dealt with in answer to a question ; and secondly, that he did not consider the time to have arrived for any declaration of opinion by Government about what had been said in Ireland on this very grave question, until “ the whole case’’ and “ the essential portions of the “ evidence ” should be before Parliament and the public.

THE FORT­

NIGHTLY” ON THE GALWAY JUDGMENT.

The Fortnightly Review has a curious article by Professor lleesly on the Galway judgment, which we notice because a good deal of it chimes in with what we have said on the impossibility of treating “ spiritual influence” as a crime. “ There are few people,” he says, and we believe him, “ who would be better pleased than I if the “ Catholic priest ceased to have the smallest spiritual in“ fluence over any man, woman, or child, in Galway, or “ anywhere else. But my dislike of his doctrines and my “ impatience of his influence shall not tempt me to encroach “ on his freedom of speech. So long as he can persuade “ people that his religion is a true one ; that he has a super11 natural commission to direct them ; that their eternal hap“ piness or misery depends upon their obedience to his “ teaching, his influence is a perfectly legitimate one ; ” which is nearly word for word what we have ourselves said. “ It rests,” he adds, “ in these islands, at least, on moral “ and intellectual forces alone, and to oppose it by any “ other than moral and intellectual forces is as wrong as it “ is foolish and shortsighted.” And towards the close of the article we have the following comprehensive view of the principle which lies at the bottom of all persecution of the Church. “ It is a strange spectacle, this Catholic Church in “ its decrepitude, still strong, because it is the only Spiritual “ Power worth counting in Europe ; so strong within its own “ domain that its enemies have no confidence that they can “ beat it there, but have recourse to violent repressions. The

“ Galway judgment, the expulsion of the Jesuits from Ger“ many, the shooting of Archbishop Darboy— all manifesta“ tiens o f modern Liberalism in its various hues, are so many “ confessions of moral defeat. The Governments which aim “ blows at Catholicism with one hand, while they subsidize it “ with the other, that it may help them to keep down the dis“ contented masses, make the plainest confession o f weak“ ness. Yet the extreme wing of Liberalism, when it is not “ content with abolishing the ‘ budget ecclésiastique,’ and the “ exemption of priests from military service, but avows its in“ tention to prohibit them from taking any part in the instruc“ tion of youth, does it show any confidence in its own “ strength? The truth is that Mr. Justice Keogh and the “ English press, Prince Bismarck and the German Liberals, “ Félix Pyat and the Père Duchêsne, are all in the same boat, “ pulling oars, indeed, of different length and sweep, but in “ very tolerable time.” Professor Beesly goes on to claim for Positivists the credit of conceding “ absolute liberty to Catholics,” while depriving them of all privileges. If, how* ever, we remember rightly, he is not altogether borne out in this by the earlier apostolic utterances of Mr. Congreve.

As the case of Mr. O’Keeffe appears likely

th e case of t0 come before Parliament, and as his removal

from the managership of the National schools,

and the chaplaincy to the workhouse is persistently represented as a novel piece of truckling to ecclesiastical authority, Professor Kavanagh’s letter to the P a l l M a ll Gazette is thoroughly well-timed. We print it elsewhere. The facts are, that in the case of chaplaincies to workhouses, “ the practice has invariably been to remove or dismiss a “ chaplain when suspended.” And this is only strict justice, for the State has no right to impose upon paupers a pastor whose ministrations they must, if they are good Catholics, consider to be at least invalid. And as regards the National schools the principle is still more definitely laid down, for in the trust deeds of schools erected under building grants it is provided that “ the priest or priests having care of the con“ gregation under faculties duly received from or confirmed “ by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the district, so long as “ such faculties subsist or are unrevoked, shall have the “ superintendence, &c.” And that this has been the practice, as well as the law, is proved by the evidence o f Sir A. Macdonnell before the Royal Commission on Primary Education, who says, “ In the case of a clergyman who is a “ manager, his successor succeeds him ; that, from the first, “ has been the rule of the Board of Education. Suppose a “ Presbyterian minister places a school under us and then is “ removed, we, as a matter of course, always appoint and “ recognize his successor as manager. So with regard to “ the parish priest, and so with regard to clergymen of the “ Established Church.”

The failure of the attempt on the part of the

the french majority to win over M. Thiers to an attitude

debates. resistance to the Radicals, has naturally put

an end to a good deal of the concession to and compromise with Government which has hitherto been the rule. At the end of last week seven out of nine deputies who were members of the famous deputation were named Presidents of their bureaux ; and the Committee on the Budget has named as reporter M. Magne, Minister o f Finance under the Empire— a very good financier, and o f course opposed to the President’s economic theories. The Bill imposing a tax of 2 per cent, on incomes arising from mortgages was passed by a majority of 63 ; and though M. Thiers expressed his intention the next day of speaking against that decision, yet, perceiving the temper of the Chamber, he took advantage of M. Jaubert’s accusation, that he was violating the regulations in re-opening the question, to relinquish his intention of speaking, in spite of a decision by M. Grévy in his favour on the point o f order. The Assembly then passed the whole Bill, including the mortgage income tax, by 327 votes to 261. On Monday M. Thiers again spoke in favour of the tax on raw materials, affirming that it would produce 50 millions of revenue, and that France had a right to impose such duties in spite of treaties with foreign Powers. This brought M. Rouherto the Tribune, where he was hooted by the Left as usual. The Right and the Centre protested against the interruption, and the President insisted on his being allowed to speak. He requested information from the Government in support of their statements, asserting that the treaties of i860 did preclude the taxation of these articles, and declaring that if he succeeded in preventing them from being taxed he should consider that he had rendered one more service to his